Monty, could you please define the terms? If gay marriages and the abortion/pro choice issues are not especially important to me, and I believe instead that we (and the politicians we elected) should be focused instead on resolving such problems as the growing budget deficit, trade balances, the exportation of jobs, the war in Iraq, the healthcare crisis, white collar crime, the plight of the poor, the environment, immigration, etc., am I a right winger or a left winger? Why?

Today. The 4th of July, symbolical centerpiece of our nation's ongoing quest for progress in freedom and prosperity. Picnics. Parades. The American way. Flanders Field. Iwo Jima. The Bulge. Inchon. Hue. Basra. I now give you that which transcends your trivial leaning, left and right, center, stereo, or surround. I give you the eating championship of America, open to all citizens of the world. Sponsored annually by Nathan's, purveyor of fine weenies. Covered in all its porcine glory by ESPN, this morning at 10:00 A.M. Pacific. A spectacular celebration of what it means to be an American.

If you weren't glued to your tube, just picture this. A 100' banquet table. About 20 or 30 contestants, from all the corners of the earth -- Asian, Caucasian, black, white, brown. Large, small, fat, tall, male, female, and ambiguous. Like the Olympic 100 Meter finals, the center lanes go to the favorites, the fastest and most efficient qualifiers in the pre-eating. The mighty Kobayashi, who speaks only Japanese and needs his agent/translator to communicate with the press, is favored, defending the title he has held for the past, I dunno, at least 3 or 4 years. But Joey Chestnut, the American on America's day, is favored by some to upset the mighty Kobayashi. The world record, for the alloted 12 minutes, is 53 hot dogs. Kobayashi expects to break it. Joey expects to do whatever it takes to send Kobayashi back to his native Sushi Bars sans title.

They're off and eating! I cannot begin to do the event justice, so I will give you some of the professional commentary.

"Joey Chestnut. What a man! He has energized the American eating scene."

"Kobayashi triumphantly holds the coveted Mustard Belt, courageously sprinting near the end to retain his title."

Kobayashi, in a rather undignified pose for such an important event, has about half a weenie still protruding from his cheeks when the final bell sounds. It is his 54th. The judges give him a final total of 53.75, allowing him to break his own record by 3/4 of a weenie. Through his translator, he allows that Joey Chestnut, consumer of a mere 52 of the forcemeat delicacies, is still "a major league eater." What a good sport!

Shame, shame on all of you who missed this archetypically American contest, harping on your damned left and right trivialities while hot dogs are being scarfed by the thousands!

Oh, by the way, many of the constestants were wearing I-pods, rhythmically bobbing and weaving while stuffing their faces, to God only knows what music. Consult your local listings...slo-mo replays may be scheduled in the future.

I lean left or right depending on how many Pilsner Urquell's or Chimay's I've had. Seriously, I believe in personal freedoms like abortion and the right to marry who you want. I also believe in capitol punishment and less government. Nathan's makes great hot dogs. They're right up there with Hebrew National. I'm just a piker when it comes to consuming hot dogs. I've been able to eat only 7 or so at one sitting.

7??? Only SEVEN?? I'd be embarrassed. So I won't publicize my Personal Best. I was particularly impressed by the petite dimensions of the top finishers. Occasionally, the cameras would pan the entire spectacle, and some real hippos were at it on the far left and right. But center stage belonged to the small in stature. There was a tiny Asian girl -- couldn't have been even CLOSE to 5' tall, very slim -- to the left of Kobayashi, who savaged more than 30 of the weenies. Really. She gets my vote for the TRUE champion, pound for pound (which is the way all MY heroes have to measure). Pound for pound, for example, NOBODY can beat Dubya in the most-air-between-the-largest-ears category. And he's my President, I am proud to say.

It is interesting, from these few responses, that most folks out there don't want to be located within such a simplistic polarity as "left" vs "right." I certainly don't. I want the Federal Reserve to stop "managing" my money with the sledgehammer of interest rates, especially while pretending to know what they are doing. I would pay 50%, even 75% of my income in taxes if I could control how the money was being spent. Do these preferences make me "left" or "right" leaning. I am actually somewhat proud, in a world absolutely awash in folly, to be part of a nation that voted in the most stupid gang of morons ever assembled in ANY democratic (or even quasi-democratic) system of government. Now, them's some REAL braggin' rights. I'll go along with JA's suggested bias towards philosophically Libertarian values. Unfortunately, LibertarianISM has spawned a few of our most conspicuous blockheads over the past 3 or 4 decades. One thing is for certain, no matter what one's individual biases happen to be. Nothing good is going to happen in this country so long as we leave the job of government to those whom we elect, then just forget about until all the issues pop up again during the end of each election cycle. Then another 50% turnout, then 2-6 more years of apathetic idleness. Somehow, the people in this country have to find a way to hold these elected idiots' collective feet to the fire DURING their appointed tenures. How long has Kennedy been allowed his pro forma returns to Congress? Or pick your favorite member of the rotting right. As long as we allow ourselves to be "governed," we'll deserve what we get.Hopefully, we'll always have rap music and weenie-eating to get us through the rough spots.

You are absolutely right, John. However, the current "right-wing", or religious right, of the Republican party has certainly decided that such freedoms as abortion and anything they do not like going on in our bedrooms are to be denied to us by changing the law, the constitution, or whatever it takes to crack down on us.They believe in freedom only as long as it does not extend to blacks, Jews, gays, liberals, or Democrats; sounds almost like those guys in the white hoods and robes, doesn't it?

When you say that gay marriages and abortion are not particularly important to you and that you care about the poor, I think you have just drummed yourself out of any consideration of being a Republican...let alone the right wing of said party!

When you say that gay marriages and abortion are not particularly important to you and that you care about the poor, I think you have just drummed yourself out of any consideration of being a Republican...let alone the right wing of said party!

You sound like one of those liberals to me...lol.

I can testify that "liberal" in the US sense is broadly understood as "not a member of the extreme right wing religious / militaristic nuts" in more civilized nations

More "civilized" nations? And you wonder why you get the responses you get on other topics like WWII. We should remove Micky D's, Colonel Sanders and American TV shows from your country. You'll then have nothing worth watching but the BBC while you're eating "French" fries with mayonnaise.

Nobody knows what "liberal" means. Nobody, nowhere. It is a useless counter that has been emptied of meaning. If you're a "conservative," you make fun of their cars and the way they dress. If you're a "liberal," you refer to your opposite number as a "fascist pig," "redneck," or "reactionary." If you watch too much TV and read USA Today, you assign the colors red and blue. Jeff should do us a caricature, because the polarity has been transmogrified by cliches into the stuff of comic strips. Thoughtful folks on both sides of the Atlantic vote the details, the specific issues, without emptying their minds into one side of a meaningless dichotomy. By the way, I do enjoy Belgian beer, but on a hot day at the golf course the American brands are better, if ice-cold -- they taste like carbonated water with the slightest hint of hops. Very refreshing. Do the Belgians make speakers, and/or electronics? If so, we ought to get the peripatetic ST on a jet poste-haste -- an opportunity for le scoop, as he puts it. Cheers, Clifton

Quote:More "civilized" nations? And you wonder why you get the responses you get on other topics like WWII. We should remove Micky D's, Colonel Sanders and American TV shows from your country. You'll then have nothing worth watching but the BBC while you're eating "French" fries with mayonnaise.

Oh, I don't really wonder why I get these responses. Sorry to disappoint you, but I have never seen a single Micky D or Colonel Sanders over here! Heck, even Kentucky Fried Chicken does not have much success. But please don't tell Bush, he might decide to "pacify" us if he heard of our existence and lack of compliance with US civilization standards!

Don't laugh about mayonnaise - the stereotype about Americans is that they demand ketchup with their gourmet food at expensive restaurants!

Nobody knows what "liberal" means. Nobody, nowhere. It is a useless counter that has been emptied of meaning. If you're a "conservative," you make fun of their cars and the way they dress. If you're a "liberal," you refer to your opposite number as a "fascist pig," "redneck," or "reactionary." If you watch too much TV and read USA Today, you assign the colors red and blue. Jeff should do us a caricature, because the polarity has been transmogrified by cliches into the stuff of comic strips. Thoughtful folks on both sides of the Atlantic vote the details, the specific issues, without emptying their minds into one side of a meaningless dichotomy.

I realize how content-free the word is. FYI, over here "liberal" means "right wing". No kidding.

Quote:By the way, I do enjoy Belgian beer, but on a hot day at the golf course the American brands are better, if ice-cold -- they taste like carbonated water with the slightest hint of hops. Very refreshing. Do the Belgians make speakers, and/or electronics? If so, we ought to get the peripatetic ST on a jet poste-haste -- an opportunity for le scoop, as he puts it. Cheers, Clifton

Sadly, it's an audio desert over here as far as audio companies are concerned. I know only of a couple of mom-and-pop shops building very specialized stuff in tiny quantity. The audiophile-grade hardware sold here is imported mostly from the UK, France, America, Italy, Germany, China...

I'm sure you know that "liberal" used to mean "right wing" here, too. 'Way back when men wore ribbons on their wigs, women wore hoops, cowboys wore fringe on their shirts, Injuns wore makeup, and communists were multi-wived and staked out their claim to Utah. Sigh. Mutatis mutandis. You ought to open an audio salon, Alain -- you'd make a killing.

I entirely concur in the propriety of resorting to the sense in which the Constitution was accepted and ratified by the nation. In that sense alone it is the legitimate Constitution. And if that is not the guide in expounding it, there may be no security for a consistent and stable, more than for a faithful exercise of its powers. If the meaning of the text be sought in the changeable meaning of the words composing it, it is evident that the shape and attributes of the Government must partake of the changes to which the words and phrases of all living languages are constantly subject. What a metamorphosis would be produced in the code of law if all its ancient phraseology were to be taken in its modern sense. And that the language of our Constitution is already undergoing interpretations unknown to its founder, will I believe appear to all unbiassed Enquirers into the history of its origin and adoption. **end**

This relates to the changing meaning of what is considered a Liberal or Conservative. While Webster may define them in an absolute sense, clearly the meaning of the two has changed in practical use.

This is a pretty amazing quote. Can you imagine how many hundreds of pages one of our contemporary exegetes would waste on the matter of literal interpretation of the constitution, and still not get to the precise point Madison states so clearly? Just recall the recent flap over whether our most recent appointee to the Supreme Court was a follower of the Constitution as written, or a revisionist. I doubt, though, that even as concise a thinker as Madison could do much with the liberal/conservative and left/right contraries under discussion. It is interesting that so many bits have been expended on this topic on a Stereophile forum, when so many readers of the magazine feel politics have no place in it. Art Dudley, deemed the most egregious offender in the matter of mixing politics with audiophilia, hasn't written a hundredth of this thread, even taking the totality of his oeuvre at both Stereophile and Listener, in jest or otherwise. Give a man a glass of spirits, a political or religious issue and a web address or bar stool, and there will be no end to the hypocrisies and self-contradictions committed to breath and word -- add a gun to the mix, and you'll start a war. Thanks for the great excerpt, Monty. Cheers, Clifton

This is a pretty amazing quote. Can you imagine how many hundreds of pages one of our contemporary exegetes would waste on the matter of literal interpretation of the constitution, and still not get to the precise point Madison states so clearly? Just recall the recent flap over whether our most recent appointee to the Supreme Court was a follower of the Constitution as written, or a revisionist. I doubt, though, that even as concise a thinker as Madison could do much with the liberal/conservative and left/right contraries under discussion. It is interesting that so many bits have been expended on this topic on a Stereophile forum, when so many readers of the magazine feel politics have no place in it. Art Dudley, deemed the most egregious offender in the matter of mixing politics with audiophilia, hasn't written a hundredth of this thread, even taking the totality of his oeuvre at both Stereophile and Listener, in jest or otherwise. Give a man a glass of spirits, a political or religious issue and a web address or bar stool, and there will be no end to the hypocrisies and self-contradictions committed to breath and word -- add a gun to the mix, and you'll start a war. Thanks for the great excerpt, Monty. Cheers, Clifton

Clifton walking on water. You can't be first but you can be next. Sir.

This just in. A columnist for the Los Angeles Times wrote this morning about requests he has received for campaign contributions. He mentions a fellow named Craig Smith, a former speechwriter for Gerald Ford and currently a teacher at Cal State, Long Beach (Poli-Sci, a course titled "Campaign Persuasion"), offers this definition of "Liberal" and "Conservative":

"For me, it always goes back to this: if you put a gun to a Republican's head and say, 'Choose between individuality or equality,' they'll (sic) pick individual freedom. A good liberal will pick equality over individual freedom."

No wonder Ford was always tripping over things, eh? How much of your "individuality" are YOU willing to sacrifice to help somehow "equalize" the rest of the social fabric? And this guy teaches at the college level. I would like to donate 20 points of my IQ (I know, I know -- this would shove me further below the "moron" line...I can afford it) to all the idiots out there who are willing to even go near this morass. Cheers, Clifton

I like the way George Will describes liberalism. His story goes something like this; Two liberals were walking down the street when they notice a man laying in the gutter, badly beaten and bloody. One liberal says to the other, "Oh my, we have to find the man who did this, he needs help!"

Quote:I like the way George Will describes liberalism. His story goes something like this; Two liberals were walking down the street when they notice a man laying in the gutter, badly beaten and bloody. One liberal says to the other, "Oh my, we have to find the man who did this, he needs help!"

Oh, ouch!

I heard it a different way:

Two conservatives were walking down the street when they notice a man laying in the gutter, robbed, broke, destitute, badly beaten and bloody. One conservative says to the other, "Oh my, we have to find the man who did this, he needs tax cuts!"

The other conservative says, "Yeah, this guy here obviously did this to himself. Not our problem."

Very good, Monty, Buddha. And around we go again. All I can remember of George Will (he was a southpaw, right?) is his idiotic blather about baseball. Incidentally, since the National League is the oldest and eschews the DH, it would be Conservative, right? But all the teams have switch-hitters. I guess we better not go there...cheers all.

Anyway, I like George Will. In general, he remains philosophically consistent. Same with Scalia. These guys have a way of looking at the world, intellectually, and they stay on task, for the most part.

I can admire someone who thinks a certain way, is happy to explain why (beyond thumping and saying, "Because") and can carry on a discussion.

George Will hated Bush I, unfairly, I think, but George has his ideology and is prepared to disagree, even if it's disagreeing with a Republican. What more could I ask of the guy?

I think Clifton is well to the right of me, but I love the guy. He doesn't change his story to try and appease others...excellent.

__________________________________________

Baseball!

I love everything about it except having to watch it on TV. At the park, at least, you can load up on beer and hot dogs. I look at going to a baseballe game as a nine course meal - one delicious snack or beverage every inning. What's not to like about that?

OK, so which league is more liberal or consrvative.

The AL has the DH, which, on the surface, seems liberal - having someone come into the game to bat for the pitcher seems like pitcher welfare.

The Angels in the AL are balanced out by the Padres in the NL. Give the NL the Catholics and the Protestants can take the AL. But! The AL has the DEVIL Rays, whose first word the thumpers think will ruin their fragile faith and destroy our nation. So, give the evangelicals back to the NL.

Then again, Cardinals are Catholic royalty, so let's split the Catholics.

The NL has the Dodgers, which, in the era of Enron, is a conservative thing.

Pirates...I'd go with conservative again...plundering and all. I was thinking this could be liberal, but being a pirate is kind of a libertarian taking of wealth and giving none back. Liberal pirates would have had more self-loathing. Hence, conservative.

Minnesota has the Twins. Who doesn't like twins? I bet "having" twins is pretty liberal. More a rock and roll thing...yup, liberal.

Well, then it gets complicated.

If you look at how each baseball city voted, it's an overwhelmingly blue sport.

LOL, you guys reminded me of George Carlin's bit on the difference between Baseball and Football. If you haven't heard it, it's a real classic. He concludes that Baseball is a sissy sport, while Football is the manly sport. He references Baseball as being played in a "park"...weeeee, let's go to the park! Then goes on to describe Football being played in "Soldier Field" or "War Memorial Stadium" daaadaaaduuuuuum!

Quote:I like the way George Will describes liberalism. His story goes something like this; Two liberals were walking down the street when they notice a man laying in the gutter, badly beaten and bloody. One liberal says to the other, "Oh my, we have to find the man who did this, he needs help!"

I love the way conservatives are always making sweeping generalizations about liberals...

Quote:LOL, you guys reminded me of George Carlin's bit on the difference between Baseball and Football. If you haven't heard it, it's a real classic. He concludes that Baseball is a sissy sport, while Football is the manly sport. He references Baseball as being played in a "park"...weeeee, let's go to the park! Then goes on to describe Football being played in "Soldier Field" or "War Memorial Stadium" daaadaaaduuuuuum!

It really is a hilarious bit.

It is a hilarious bit, and you've almost completely misinterpreted it.

Hey, Buddha -- Listen, Anaheim is so Red, they made Arte Moreno learn German before they would sell him the Angels. I'm a hybrid, like most folks in these bastard times. Economically, I tend to the conservative side, thinking we'd better off on a gold/silver standard of some sort, and all this Fed meddling with overnight rates and customer repos will come to no good. Socially, since I grew up poor, I despise the blind Social Darwinism espoused by many hard righters -- most of them inherited their fortunes and believe, somehow, they "deserve" the more-than-good-life, that the poor are poor of their own doing. Did you know Buffett, for instance, is the son of a U.S. Congressman, and grew up with all the royal advantages? I would honestly pay 50% in taxes with a smile, if I could somehow sleep nights knowing it would be efficiently distributed to the needy. I hope Cedar City was fine -- if I had planned a bit better, I could have made it up there. One last bit: a recent poll revealed that 70% of Americans would not trust the country to a Mormon president (listening, Reverend Hatch?). Mr. Rove is a dropout from my undergraduate alma mater, Utah. Whew...that was a CLOSE call! He moved to Texas, apparently, because Utah was too liberal. Snicker. Cheers and best wishes! Clifton

Hey, Monty -- I don't think you misrepresented it at all. I remember most distinctly the part where, in football, "you MARCH down the field, into ENEMY territory, then SMASH through enemy lines to win...the OFFENSE has an AIR ATTACK and a GROUND ATTACK." In baseball, "you waalk to first base...then, you get to go hooome..."

Football is played in any kind of weather--rain, snow, sleet, hail, fog, major catastrophe, can't see, don't know if there's a game going on, mud on the field, can't read the uniforms, can't read the yard markers--doesn't matter, the struggle will continue.In baseball, if it rains, we don't go out to play. I can't go out, it's raining out!!

And, of course, the objectives of the games are also completely different.

In football, the object is for the quarterback, sometimes called the field general, to be on target with his aerial assault, riddling the defense by hitting his receivers with deadly accuracy in spite of the blitz, even if he has to use the shotgun. With short bullet passes and long bombs, he marches into enemy territory, balancing this aerial assault with a sustained ground attack which may consist of power plays designed to punch holes in the forward wall of the enemy's defensive line.In baseball, the object is to get home . . . safe.

I think it takes a lot of spin to suggest that Carlin talking up football and talking down baseball in that piece.

If one were to just read DBarnett's transcript, he might conclude that Carlin's view of Baseball was that it was a noble sport with positive attributes and Football an ugly negative thing. I was thinking, "He's got Monty here."

But, then I decided I wasn't informed enough, didn't remember the Carlin bit too clearly, and should listen to it before drawing any conclusions. I have the Carlin box set and dug out the Wally Londo CD and played the piece in question.

Monty wins. Baseball is for sissies. You have to hear Carlin's inflection and delivery to fully appreciate the words and their meaning.

I played both in college. Anybody who has been routinely smacked upside the head by some drooling Neanderthal -- euphemistically called a "linebacker" -- knows there is no comparison. Junkyard dog type fights in practice every day. That's every single day, folks. The coaches not only encourage it, they demand it. A season of football practice is life in the land of the eternally pissed. And they are all bigger than you. Smaller players, like yours truly, are expected to bite, once all the functioning limbs have been, er, neutralized. Grunts and hand-waving dominate the quiet moments. I eventually concentrated on baseball. At baseball practice, you lope around the outfield shagging flies, smelling the grass. A few other baseball players also played football, and continued with both sports. You could spot them immediately at baseball practice -- they always looked confused..."when do I get to hit somebody?...why is everybody smiling?" Better a live sissy than a dead he-man, is what I say. Somehow, this does, indeed, relate to our left/right definers, although I'll leave it to you all to precisely identify the details.

Quote: You have to hear Carlin's inflection and delivery to fully appreciate the words and their meaning.

Then you need the visual element too, to complete the picture. That and a little background knowledge of Carlin's politics. His facial expressions and body language leave little room for doubt. He lampoons them both, obviously, but when he compares football to war, he does not see that as A Good Thing.

Is the use of the armed forces of the United States to protect the assets of multi-national corporations a liberal or conservative interpretation of the constitution? And is it possible for both the left and the right to be out of phase at the same time?

I'm mostly on the right, particularly when it comes to the federal government's role in everyone's life. That is, I feel that it should keep its big nose out of my life--and by extension--my wallet. I must say I find it quite disturbing when the Supreme Court votes for Eminent Domain. For a conservative court they sure took a liberal left turn with that one.

In the nutshell, I believe that when someone looks at their paycheck the vast majority of the taxes deducted should be going to the state in which they live. All education and entitlement spending should be done at the state level. That includes social "in"security. The only things the federal government should be responsible for are national defense (both overt and covert), infrastructure (interstate roads, bridges, damns), the national park system, and various watchdog agencies. In fact, the federal government would have a hard time not screwing those up.

I also believe that certain types of taxes should be illegal. Taxes on one's home are at the top of that list. A home is the most precious thing anyone can own. Threats to this right via the eminent domain rulings of various courts and excessive taxation seem to be growing.

A couple of years ago when I was living in Pittsburgh people were losing their homes by the hundreds because they couldn't afford the taxes anymore. Pittsburgh has been controlled by Democrats for decades. And Democratic fiscal policy certainly hasn't done Louisiana any good either.

And that brings me to George Bush--the biggest spending Democrat on Capital Hill. Do you folks know that entitlement and education spending has gone up much more under Mr. Republican George Bush than it did under Mr. Democrat Bill Clinton? Indeed, there is no one representing me in Washington.

As far as social concerns go, I don't give a damn if someone is gay. My first voice teacher was bisexual. He seemed pretty cool to me. If there is a God (which I doubt) let him be the judge. My only problem with gay people is the fact that SOME of them feel the need to throw their gayness in everyone's face ala parades in which they participate with their behinds hanging out. I say, where's the self-respect? Where's the dignity?

As for abortion, I don't like it. I think that it is one of the most selfish, cold-hearted acts one can commit. Still, I also believe it's the woman's choice--that is, if it is carried out before the third trimester. As far as I'm concerned, at the third trimester that is a living human being.

Gun control? I believe that all handguns, hunting rifles and shotguns should be legal. All military type automatic rifles and higher caliber weapons should be off limits. Also, all handgun owners should be licensed and tested just like anyone who drives a car. Taking away an american's right to bear arms is completely out of the question.

You know, everyone in this country seems to have forgotten that we are actually 50 individual little countries banded together to form a union. I believe some defederalization is in order.

Well, what we have here is a nihilist. There is no right or wrong, black or white, left and right, or Three Dog Night. And the answer to your question is yes since all your examples include American interests no matter what your personal views may be on each one.

Good stuff, DPM. We have, in the name of "security," given up a few rights along the way. Joe, I'll never be sure if Dubya's war was personal or just stupid. He got bit by a mosquito and attacked the nearest rhino. Money spent? You ain't seen nothin', yet, my friend. Wait 'til we get the bill for rebuilding Lebanon. It should be sent to Iran, but guess who's gonna pay? I guess it's okay, though -- computer entries are cheap, and we can create numbers on the books faster than even Dubya can spend 'em.

If it was a "skeeter" at least that's a plausible reason. We are in agreement about Iran paying to rebuild Lebanon. I think we should unleash the Israeli's and let them flatten most of the middle east. We can just look the other way when they nuke Damascus, Tehran and Riyadh.

Iran IS paying to rebuild Lebanon through Hizbollah. You call that a good idea? And you have a valid point about Iraq? You will get nothing and like it. And I'm a little surprised at a USMC officer not seeing the fallacy in that idea. Especially, with the Marines successes with CAP in Vietnam. Are you sure you fought a counterinsurgency war in Vietnam or did you just sit behind a supply desk?

IRAQ was defeated after invading Kuwait. Iraq agreed to certain terms as part of its loss. Iraq did not honor its terms. Everybody choose to take the easy path and ignore Iraqs transgressions. Whatever, my life is fine. Someone stood up and said "BULL SHIT" you made an agreement and you are not in compliance. If we don't do this how will anyone take us seriously? We would become as lame as the UN.Yes it sucks, but someone has to do it.

Who you callin' a marine? I was neither a marine or an officer. I was in the USAF stationed at Kam Rahn Bay. Sitting behind a desk was how I spent much of my time but it wasn't a supply desk. I was a medic and I wasn't allowed to carry a weapon. So, although I was not a bipedal gun platform I still came home on a medical evac flight. By the way, in case you have forgotten, we lost that war! We should have nuked Hanoi. If we had I'm certain the results would be quite different.I'm suggesting Israel nuke, as in, use nuclear weapons on the Muslims. All we have to do is act like the UN does in times of crisis. After it's all over we can publicly chastise Israel while simultaneously congratulating them in private.Muslims HATE Jews. This is a non-debatable fact. They will never coexist peacefully with Israel or any other groups. They can't even agree on the successor to Muhammad. Thats why Sunni and Shites are killing each other. Now that I have everyones attention. I advocate the use of nuclear weapons because it saves AMERICAN lives. If you obliterate the enemy the loss of AMERICAN lives is minimized because there is no one to fight.Remember, the aim of Islam is a world of Islam. That world would have Sharia as the law. Just imagine Afghanistan as the entire world. I don't want to live like that and I'm fairly certain most westerners don't either.